The importance of being vigilant of one's rights under the law and the consequences of failing to challenge orders in a timely manner.

ORDER :

A.J.DESAI, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the original petitioner has challenged the oral order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, request made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the original authority of Revenue Department under the Revenue Laws, by which the revision application preferred by the present petitioner came to be dismissed mainly on two grounds that the revision has been filed after a period of 68 years, as well as no order impugned in the revision application was produced.

2. It is the case of the appellant – petitioner that the land in question was in possession of the father of the petitioner and the same was being cultivated for years together. The petitioner came to know that by an order dated 15.01.1952 and 15.12.1951, the District Collector, Ahmedabad, has forfeited the land for breach of the conditions. The petitioner came to know about this only when the respondent authorities came to take possession of the property. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order which was passed way back in the year 1951-52. However, the respondent authorities replied that copies of the orders impugned are not available.

3. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner, that they are in possession of the properties till today. In support of his submission, the petitioner has produced the panchnama prepared in the year 2019.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhruvik Patel, appearing for the appellant would submit that since the order is not available on record, the authority could have granted the opportunity of hearing about challenge to the order which was passed in the year 1951. Mr.Patel, learned counsel, would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the property. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be admitted and the authority be directed to consider the case of the appellant.

5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned order which was impugned before the learned Single Judge and the order impugned in the present appeal passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. It is undisputed that by two orders in the year 1951-1952, the District Collector, Ahmedabad, had confiscated the land of the petitioner. The said orders were never challenged. Repeated submissions made before this Court is also on the line of arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge which has been dealt by the learned Single Judge with which we are in complete agreement. We are in agreement with the observations made in paragraphs 7 to 16 of the oral dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. The same are hereby reproduced:

“7. The issue revolves around the survey no.903 which, according to the petitioner, belonged to Gangla Trikam, the father of the petitioner. It appears that the land was allotted to him on the new tenure basis; however, owing to non-payment of the revenue, order dated 12.08.1941 was passed with respect to both the survey nos.903 and 926 and were forfeited by the State Government, which is clear from entry no.1389. The name of the khatedar came to be deleted and the entry was certified on 08.11.1941. It appears from the revenue record that thereafter, the land was granted to one Mangal Kala for a period of three years for the purpose of cultivation by the State Government which continued till the year 1946-1947. Somewhere in the year 1951, the Collector had passed an order dated 15.12.1951, followed by the order dated 15.01.1952 by the Mamlatdar and the lands were deleted from the head of government waste land and were designated as a gauchar land. Entry no.1701 was posted in the revenue record and was certified. After mutation of the entry no.1701, entry no.1935 dated 28.07.1953 was posted in the revenue record by which, possession of the land bearing survey no.903 was handed over to the panchayat and it had a